Last Modified: 2003-06-16
Done | Post Internet-Draft for Entity MIB. | |
Done | Post updated Entity MIB Internet-Draft. | |
Done | Submit final version of Internet-Draft for consideration as a Proposed Standard. | |
Done | Finalize scope of changes/augmentations to RFC 2037 | |
Done | Post updated/new Internet Drafts | |
Done | Reach agreement on changes/extensions to RFC 2037 | |
Done | Evaluate status of RFC 2037 and report to the IESG if it should be recycled at Proposed or can be elevated to Draft Standard. | |
Done | Submit Internet Draft containing Entity MIB Extensions to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. | |
Done | Evaluate status of Entity MIB and collect implementation and interoperability reports | |
Done | Recommend to the IESG if Entity MIB can be elevated to Draft Standard. | |
Done | Post Internet-Draft for Sensor Entity MIB | |
Done | Determine if the Entity MIB should be modified to resolve any open issues | |
Done | Submit final version of Internet-Draft for Sensor Entity MIB for consideration as a Proposed Standard | |
Done | Re-cycle the updated Entity MIB at proposed standard, if necessary | |
Done | Submit final version of Internet-Draft for Sensor Entity MIB for consideration as a Proposed Standard | |
Done | Post Internet-Draft for Sensor Entity MIB | |
Done | Determine if the Entity MIB should be modified to resolve any open issues | |
Done | Publish state/status extensions as a WG I-D | |
Mar 03 | Evaluate status of the Sensor Entity MIB and collect implementation and interoperability reports | |
Mar 03 | Submit state/status extensions to the IESG for Proposed Standard | |
Mar 03 | Evaluate status of the Sensor Entity MIB and collect implementation and interoperability reports | |
Done | Evaluate status of the Entity MIB and collect implementation and interoperability reports | |
Done | Evaluate status of the Entity MIB and collect implementation and interoperability reports | |
May 03 | Recommend to the IESG if the Sensor Entity MIB can be elevated to Draft Standard | |
May 03 | Submit the Entity MIB to the IESG for Draft Standard | |
May 03 | Submit the Sensor Entity MIB to the IESG for Draft Standard | |
Done | Recommend to the IESG if the Entity MIB can be elevated to Draft Standard. | |
Jun 03 | Re-charter or shut-down the WG |
Entity MIB Minutes Tuesday, July 15, 2003 IETF 57 -- Vienna, Austria ========================== CHAIR: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com> AGENDA: Introduction and Agenda Bashing -- Margaret Wasserman (5 min) Entity MIB Open Issues (if any) -- Andy Bierman (15 min) http://www.i etf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-entmib-v3-01.txt Entity State MIB Open Issues (if any) -- Sharon Chisholm (15 min) http:// www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ie tf-entmib-state-01.txt Status/Milestone Update and Next Steps -- Margaret Wasserman (10 min) ENTITY MIB Andy presented one slide of changes made since last IETF, all based on consensus from the last meeting. Discussion of whether we need implementation reports available before WG last call. Those in the room were comfortable with the implementation information they've seen, and thought that it would be okay to start the last call in parallel with completing the implementation report. Entity MIB will be sent to WGLC for DS after the IETF. ENTITY STATE MIB Sharon presented the open issues with the Entity State MIB. Andy commented that he likes the addition of the "not supported" choice, as it is easier for application develoers. Some discussion of the meaning of states, and their relationship to X.731. We have added some values, and we have not supported all of their states. In particular, we are having trouble deciding how to interpret the usage state values. Dan commented that the draft is unclear on the distinction between 'active' and 'busy' for usage state. It is obvious for containers, but not for physical entities like power supplies. Needs clarification. Dan will send some suggestions to the list. Andy pointed out that the Entity State MIB doesn't include the new CPU enumeration. Will open a problem report in RT. Dave Perkins isn't convinced that the usage object is useful -- the values can all be derived from other objects. Discussion of how 'loadsharing' value of StandbyStatus TC would be applied to some physical entities. Andy pointed out that this isn't enough information to do something really useful. QUESTION: Should we add the 'load-balancing' value to the StandbyStatus TC. Marjority not to add, but not definitive. To be discussed on the list. Sharon will clarify description regarding the meanings of the notifications. Andy asked about hysteresis mechanism to avoid a lot of notifications when state is flapping. Sharon argued that it shouldn't happen, and Andy agreed that it is okay as is. Some clarifications needed on the topic of corrective action. Sharon will look at related MIBs and consider changes. Dave Perkins would like to see a prototype implementation before this goes to PS. Andy asked "why?", and Dave indicated that this is too important to change later. Andy thinks that there is a lot of lee-way for applications developers, particularly entStateOper. What does it mean at the chassis or system level? Andy will send suggestions. ACTION ITEMS ============ Margaret Last Call the Entity MIB for DS after IETF. Margaret Post Entity MIB implementation report on the web. Dan Send suggested wording for 'busy' and 'active' usage states. Andy Open a problem report in RT indicating that the CPU enumeration is missing in the Entity State MIB. All Comment on Entity State MIB last call. Sharon/Dave Update Entity State MIB after last call completes and circulate changes to the list for review. Andy Send suggestions for entStateOper for chassis. |